Felon Disenfranchisement Issue Heading to the Supreme Court?

[usregimechange]

On Friday, a First Circuit Panel split 2-1 in Simmons v. Galvin, a case challenging the disenfranchisement of currently incarcerated Massachusetts felons under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the ex post facto clause. The opinions total 104 pages. The majority, in an opinion by Chief Judge Lynch, rejected the arguments. Judge Torruella issued a lengthy dissent, noting the close split within other circuits that have addressed the issue. Judge Torruella's position on the meaning of section 2 is very much like that expressed by Judge Sotomayor in Hayden v. Pakaki.

Judge Sotomayor: "It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all 'voting qualification(s)." And it is equally plain that s 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to itscoverage.

The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's "wealth of persuasive evidence" that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under s 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 25, includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of s 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it. I respectfully dissent."

Judge Torruella: "Rather this is a case about interpreting a clearly worded congressional statute, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ('VRA'), according to its terms, when there is no persuasive reason to do otherwise."

This case could well go to the Supreme Court on an issue that Judge Sotomayor knows well.

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/014188.html


AP wire:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090801court_mass_can_deny_jailed_felons_right_to_vote/


Judges in the Majority:
Lynch, Sandra Lea, Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 11, 1995.
Boudin, Michael, Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 18, 1990.

Judge in the Minority:
Torruella, Juan R., Nominated by Ronald Reagan on August 1, 1984.


Ruling by the three judge panel:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/08-1569P-01A.pdf

[jasi2006]

1. This should be a goodie....for several reasons.

The states make loads of money off the prison industry...all levels.
The prisoners count toward census data in the state of inprisonment...which could mean for some areas..like Texas extra seats in the halls of Congress. Also some types of Federal payouts and subsidies are granted according to state populations...which includes prisoners. Any wonder why quite a few southern states and mid west states had a prison building boom over the past two decades?
So, if prisoners can't vote, why should they count in the census and other populations counts?

[Thothmes]

2. Article 1, section 2. of the Constitution

mandates a census (enumeration). Voting status has never been a determining factor in the census. If it had been, then women would have not been counted until the after 1920. Since each state makes a determination of who is qualified to vote, the Federal census would have to be customized for each state. Not good idea jmo.

[vadawg]

3. yup felons voting is a states right, can of worms time again..

[TexasObserver]

4. Yes, it's a constitutional issue.

A felon who has served their time should be guaranteed the vote.

This is another example of pig headed thinking by the pig headed. They decide to limit felons from voting, mainly because it helps rightwing goobers get and stay elected. THAT is the only reason we have such laws.